Thanks for asking. I answered something along these lines in r/politics. This is what I said:

Despite my views on electoral reform, environmental policies and social issues, I am conservative. I’m worried about government spending beyond its means, I’m worried about our debt, I’m worried about regulations that make it hard for people to start businesses without 18 permits and 3 professional licenses, and I’m worried at the state and city level about bad pension promises crowding out education and other spending. I’m not a “No Tax Pledge” Republican, but I am a “We better make damn sure every dollar we collect is spent wisely” Republican. And by the way, I’d note that my environmental views are in line with the party’s history - Nixon created the EPA, Reagan created CARB in CA and fought for the Montréal Protocol to deal with the ozone as President, and Bush 41 dealt with acid rain. As for gerrymandering? I don’t see how it is a partisan issue. Anyone who defends it, like the Michigan GOP in this case, must be forgetting that if they lose power, the other side will pull the same trick. I can even make an argument that every free-market loving Republican should support reform. If your ideas aren’t good enough to win without a fixed “market” of voters, well, that’s how a market works. Better fix the product, or in this case, party, so that you can compete.

Basically, what you consider Democratic views, I consider people's issues. The environment was not always political. I also support huge infrastructure investment, which was never political. And both parties fought my redistricting reform and open primaries, so everybody disagrees with me there. And my views on education reform clash completely with most Democratic politicians I know. I think it's crazy that tenure kicks in after two years, making you a teacher for life, and I think too much money goes to the adults in the system instead of to the kids in the classrooms.

But generally, my politics confuse people because I think politicians should look at the best idea regardless of parties, and more and more people are locked into ideological corners. In my second inaugural, I said: "Centrist does not mean weak. It does not mean watered down or warmed over. It means well-balanced and well-grounded. The American people are instinctively centrist- so should be their government." I still believe that.

‪I tweeted this, but Terry was so important to me I wanted to share with you guys. He was more than a fantastic partner for the Arnold Strongman Series - he was a dear friend.

I remember the first time I saw Terry Todd in Gold’s Gym after I moved here, lifting weights I couldn’t believe. He was such a monster - a true force, but also a kind heart and a great storyteller.‬

‪He used his powers to be a fantastic leader for the fitness crusade. He was the ambassador of strength, the historian of health, the advocate for iron. My thoughts are with his family, and my workout tomorrow is for him. I hope you’ll join me in dedicating your lifts to Terry.‬

I don't understand why people like Schwarzenegger don't just jump ship and join the Democratic party. Their views at this point are far, far closer to a centrist Democrat than they are to any Republican.

The Republican Party is now the Trump party, and that shit ain't coming back. Stop fighting it and start caucusing with people you actually share a handful of views with.

I know it disappoints my Democratic friends, but I’m not leaving. I have been a Republican since I moved to this country - I joined the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan. It’s going through a wacky period, and I disagree with a lot of it. So I’m trying to use my platform to change that.

Plus, if we abandon the party to the people currently running it, what does that say about us? If somebody breaks into your house and eats all of your food, you don’t just move out and leave them the house. You reclaim it. And believe me, there will be a reclaiming.

Until there are open primaries, redistricting reform, and campaign finance reform all over the country, a new party will be a major scramble from the start. So I choose to stay and fight.

And I think you’d prefer it if I stay where I am. Despite my views on electoral reform, environmental policies and social issues, I am conservative. I’m worried about government spending beyond its means, I’m worried about our debt, I’m worried about regulations that make it hard for people to start businesses without 18 permits and 3 professional licenses, and I’m worried at the state and city level about bad pension promises crowding out education and other spending. I’m not a “No Tax Pledge” Republican, but I am a “We better make damn sure every dollar we collect is spent wisely” Republican. And by the way, I’d note that my environmental views are in line with the party’s history - Nixon created the EPA, Reagan created CARB in CA and fought for the Montréal Protocol to deal with the ozone as President, and Bush 41 dealt with acid rain. As for gerrymandering? I don’t see how it is a partisan issue. Anyone who defends it, like the Michigan GOP in this case, must be forgetting that if they lose power, the other side will pull the same trick. I can even make an argument that every free-market loving Republican should support reform. If your ideas aren’t good enough to win without a fixed “market” of voters, well, that’s how a market works. Better fix the product, or in this case, party, so that you can compete.

I understand your frustration, but I do not believe the answer is every reasonable Republican becoming a Democrat. Right now, I can talk to Republicans who share my concerns and I can use my platform to talk about clean energy and redistricting reform.

As for the person who talked about taking action further down - I vote. I am usually fairly public about that. I’ve never believed that belonging to a party means blindly voting for everyone else who does. I’m also part of New Way California with a group of younger, problem solving legislators here who share a different vision for the party. It will take time. But we will reclaim it and then you and I can go back to politely disagreeing.

The Court sent it back to the District Court to let the Plaintiffs prove they have standing. To have standing in this type of case, the Plaintiffs have to show individualized harm--essentially that their individual vote was affected. While it appears in this case the Plaintiffs originally made such claims, they abandoned them as litigation proceeded and made claims of a collective harm for democrats. The law is pretty well established that to have standing in federal court, plaintiffs must show the individualized harm. SCOTUS is giving the Plaintiffs a second chance to prove that there was that type of harm in this case.

Essentially, SCOTUS says that the Plaintiffs screwed up in their proof of standing, but is giving them a chance to fix it. It's essentially going to be a do-over.

My team has had meetings about this all morning, and this is a great explanation of what we have learned - thank you. This case can still come back once they satisfy the justices' concerns, and in the meantime, there are fantastic reform campaigns to support.

Hey guys! These cases were a passion of mine, and I'm disappointed the Court didn't decide how I would have liked them to, but I want to make sure that nobody gets too broken-hearted to continue the fight.

This isn't the end of our court battles, but it is a call to action to support campaigns at the ballot box like we did here in California. We can win - Ohio voters passed their reform last month in a landslide. There are campaigns in Missouri, Utah, Colorado, and Michigan this fall. I'm going to launch a CrowdPAC to support those four campaigns today. Tell me if you know of other campaigns.

I'll leave you with this: we tried four times to reform California's process. We failed four times. The fifth time, we won. It's not easy, but it is doable.

UPDATE: I have launched the CrowdPAC. I don't think I'm allowed to share it here but I am sure you can all find it on your machines.

Thank you for showing me! This was in Columbus, and it was so fantastic to meet Shane. I'd change the headline to, "This is Arnold meeting one of his heroes." It was during the Arnold Sports Festival with the most muscular bodybuilders, the world's strongest men, the crossfitters, and all of that, and Shane was by far the strongest person I saw that weekend. Marsnowguy, I'm sorry for your loss, but please know it was my honor to spend some time with your brother.

I hope everyone stops attacking the poor guy because there is absolutely no reason to throw him under the bus. I only corrected the use of photobomb, but his friend could very well been one of the tourists who was surprised to see me, which I think is still a good story. My advice generally on the internet: Everybody, chill.

Can confirm. But as much as I love photo-bombing, this was not a photo-bomb. I was doing a photo shoot for GQ Germany, and I asked that we do it in public in Venice instead of in a stiff, boring studio. The photos ended up with a lot of fans in them, which was fun, and a lot of people who planned a normal day of being a tourist in Venice saw me running and biking around Muscle Beach and the boardwalk in different outrageous outfits, which I hope was fun for them.

EDIT: Please stop attacking the poor guy. His story is true - his friend was probably part of the group that was surprised to see me show up. It was just not a true photo bomb!

My team told me that there were some concerns with ads so I asked if I could upload the file to my YouTube channel. Here you go! (And we had as much fun as it looks like we had. Taran is fantastic and I howled when I finally got to see it.)